It all began, when I realised, that Japan players outproduce their Armament Points, and generally turn its production off, at the beginning of 1943. This is in exact opposite to what actually happened in IRL (and WITP). Then I discovered, that Japan squads actually DO NOT UPGRADE (which, again is opposite to what happened in WITP), and whole Japan statistics are quite questionably done from both design (ie, implementation decision in game terms, have exact opposite result, as planned IRL), and historical point of view. Here is link to "research" thread. There is also serious error, in that most "special" squads are modelled after TYPE B platoon (Device 07, which has 20 Soft Attack), with 3 GDs per platoon, while they were IRL modelled after TYPE A platoon (Device 709, which has 22 Soft Attack), with 4 GDs. MOD mostly takes care of Japan Shaped Charge technology import, from Germany, in mid-1942, introduction of TYPE 97 20mm AT Rifle, for Pacific/Burma-front units, and equipping Paratroops with TYPE 100 SMGs.

MOD, in greater, or lesser way address several game problems: Lots of burned Armament Points in early 1943. So that should force Japan player to keep Armament production, and use more HI. Reason, for both sides, to push into ending/not ending the war at historical date. At 9/45 things will get tough for Allied armour, of course if Japan hoarded enough Armament Production. IJA squad becomes larger. That means Division will need more transport capacity (over 1500 extra men), and will use more supply (again, more transports needed). All Japan squads get upgrade at 1942/1943. That will allow them remain competitive for a longer time, and inflict more loses to Allies (especially in disabled devices), so overall tempo of operations will be slower. Stronger AT strength, will result in slightly more destroyed Allied tanks, and MUCH MORE disabled. Again, slower tempo. SNLF squads are smaller (and early version is also weaker). If you are seeking garrison for your small island, SNLF units are your first choice. Paratroopers are MUCH stronger. They should easily dispatch lone base force. Allies have now real need for using all those small battalions for protecting LOC.

It seems the MOD is "work in progress". For scenarios, check posts #4, 5, and 6. All Scenarios are COMPLETELY compatible with AI. For both sides.

Here is table. There are some changes to keep it consistent with game design. Green colour means, number is greater, than previous AE scenario, Red colour, means, that this number is lower:

It all began, when I realised, that Japan players outproduce their Armament Points, and generally turn its production off, at the beginning of 1943. This is in exact opposite to what actually happened in IRL (and WITP). Then I discovered, that Japan squads actually DO NOT UPGRADE (which, again is opposite to what happened in WITP), and whole Japan statistics are quite questionably done from both design (ie, implementation decision in game terms, have exact opposite result, as planned IRL), and historical point of view. Here is link to "research" thread. There is also serious error, in that most "special" squads are modelled after TYPE B platoon (Device 07, which has 20 Soft Attack), with 3 GDs per platoon, while they were IRL modelled after TYPE A platoon (Device 709, which has 22 Soft Attack), with 4 GDs. MOD mostly takes care of Japan Shaped Charge technology import, from Germany, in mid-1942, introduction of TYPE 97 20mm AT Rifle, for Pacific/Burma-front units, and equipping Paratroops with TYPE 100 SMGs.

MOD, in greater, or lesser way address several game problems: Lots of burned Armament Points in early 1943. So that should force Japan player to keep Armament production, and use more HI. Reason, for both sides, to push into ending/not ending the war at historical date. At 9/45 things will get tough for Allied armour, of course if Japan hoarded enough Armament Production. IJA squad becomes larger. That means Division will need more transport capacity (over 1500 extra men), and will use more supply (again, more transports needed). All Japan squads get upgrade at 1942/1943. That will allow them remain competitive for a longer time, and inflict more loses to Allies (especially in disabled devices), so overall tempo of operations will be slower. Stronger AT strength, will result in slightly more destroyed Allied tanks, and MUCH MORE disabled. Again, slower tempo. SNLF squads are smaller (and early version is also weaker). If you are seeking garrison for your small island, SNLF units are your first choice. Paratroopers are MUCH stronger. They should easily dispatch lone base force. Allies have now real need for using all those small battalions for protecting LOC.

So, first, questions: 1) Do I have to get some other files, or just changing few devices in scenario, and saving it in different slot, is enough? (is there 11 files in ONE scenario?!! Do I have to pack them all? This will take over 11 Mb) 2) Which slots are currently "commonly" taken. I understand Scenario should have number over 25? 3) what happens, when two squads are in production, one of them upgrade of the other? If they would have monthly number of production, I would guess, the "old type" would be immediately upgraded to "new type". But in case of infinite Japan production? Does it mess everything, or actually allows to take replacements, without upgrading the whole division?

Here is table. There are some changes to keep it consistent with game design. Green colour means, number is greater, than previous AE scenario, Red colour, means, that this number is lower:

Everything looks to work just fine. Actually there are lots of units, in first wave, with strenghtened squads, and already onboard ships, but those ships are only 80-90% loaded, so it is no problem. Giretsu just advanced one month. There was large para operation at end of November 1944, so it should upgrade before. Test at the beginning of 1943, showed, that units sucked 15000 Armament Points, at least 2 Division upgraded their squads (which should take 6-7k each), and most of other Divisions upgraded their Engineering Squads. SNLF units also upgraded in around 50% cases, so probably Armament Cost is similar, like in WITP (NOT 1:1 load point). I must first mess with names, to allow all squads to show in the same area in database. Currently they are somewhat in 5 places. There were some trouble with finding free slots, so numbers are quite random. I am wondering, if units destined to attack Tarawa should not be actually prepared for this base? They are planning for Kwajalein. Now... where is the field to write briefing for scenario?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach But I can't tell the green from the red

Seriously, those coloured information is only cosmetic.

Here is table, with number of Device, and their upgrade. Code is simple "OLD VALUE in WITPAE" -> "NEW VALUE in mod"

China replacements are revised. Ka-1 autogyro gets 9 units. 6 land-based, and 3 ship-based. All Maru-Yu SSTs are now present, with modified armament, and entry-ports. 10cm/65 Type98 AA Gun IS now the BEST Japanese DP. Few additional tweaks. Check RTF file for further info.

Main difference would be using maximum values, where I earlier had choice. This actually only change last Paratroopers upgrade, by 3 points. First Paratroopers upgrade is month earlier, to be in line with "research". Also IJA Cavalry gets 20 Hard Attack (because it did not upgrade anyway). IJA Motorized Squad gets additional LMG in 1943, so it is now 31 Soft Attack. And most important: IJA Infantry Squad gets Island Warfare modification AND Rocket Launcher, in 8/44. That makes them only slightly weaker than US squads. This is LAST upgrade of IJA Infantry, no additional in 1945.

SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH DELETION OF OLD FILE. For updated Scenario please check post #56 on next page.

I was not sure, what third scenario should be, but I have found bug in Scenario 6, so this is it, with quick fix. Identical to Scenario 31, but with month earlier first upgrade for Paratroopers.

TOJO gets engine change, because last patch did not implemented it also in this scenario. Device 1486 (Japanese 88mm Type 99 AA Gun) is now not-empty. I have copied its statistics from stock Scenario 1.

Planes transport squads in specific way, different that rest of devices. I have run some tests, and it seems it works fine, even with larger squads. Both para drop, and air transport for Para, and large Infantry Squads works fine. Even for planes with small cargo space.

There is first scenarion in post number #4. GC Scenario 1, numbered as 31.

For some time, I was wondering what exactly should be included into "better prepared" version, of Scenario 2 squads. The only "historical" option, would be adding SMG, or AT Rocket Launcher into squad. Obviously, strengthening initial forces, would be useless, as Allies do not have enough land power to stop Japan anyway. So, I have used theoretical possibilities. Namely, IJA Infantry gets "Island Warfare" upgrade (double LMGs, and GDs), also Motorized Squad gets another LMG, Cavalry begin game with full AT power (20), and Giretsu is at the top of scale (53).

Scenario 6 (beginning at 8th December). I have set start date at 1/11/43, and gave 200k armament, and manpower. Test run through 10 days. Results:

The larger number of devices to upgrade, the rarer they will upgrade. During 10 days most smaller units upgraded (including Combat Engineers in Divisions), but only around 1/3rd Divisions get their infantry squads upgrade. Smaller units, even Brigades seems to upgrade just fine.

46458 Armament Points were used, and around 30k manpower. 8463 squads, with "weight" over 20, should have used 170k Armament Points, according to manual, so cost is still much lower, than 1:1.

Upgrades until late 1943 should take around 100k Armament Points, I was actually counting on, at least, 3 times this number, to force player NOT to upgrade units in China. Well, I can do nothing with engine right now, so problem with overproduction of Armament Points is still there, although smaller. Only time will tell how big drain would be all reinforcements for Japan in late war.

PS. As a side note. Take a look at SUPPORT (should be produced at 40 points per day), or Ta-Chi 7 Radar (should be made only ONE during 10 days). It seems, that setting production for Japan Devices do not work, at all. Standard Armament Production still apply for everything.

As most of you probably know, there was special type of anti-aircraft ammunition for large Yamato Guns. I thought (again), that it was a rare curiosity, but it seems, this was the most common ammunition type in use!

quote:

Yamato's main guns fired 27 rounds of Mk III AA shells during the battle of Mariana.

So, adding AA function, bears two interesting consequences: 1) Big calibre guns uses more ammo, so Japan must transport more supplies to front (and large guns uses a LOT of supply) 2) TFs could be forced to retire prematurely, because of using too much ammo, before reaching target, which is actually quite historical (but reasoning is different)

Now, finding exact range of this ammo could be hard. Also, I do not think game allows one gun to shot at multiple targets, so this change will not be very useful (but it was probably the same IRL). At least I hope gun damage is incorporated during AA fire, so those guns should sure-kill even B29, once they hit. So, there are 3 options: 1) Put EXACT historical ceilings, and DO NOT care the consequences 2) Put EXACT historical ceilings, and modify it according to game engine. For example it could be fairly low, so half of DB exiting ceilings would be above its range 3) Cut ceiling, for not primarily AA guns. Probably to 5000 ft, to engage only DBs/TBs at exiting ceiling

The second use is as ground bombardment ammunition, which probably should increase Soft Attack of Naval Guns. I think, the effect should be little stronger, than land artillery. The main difference looks to be number of "incendiary tubes", so taking as foundation 406 mm (is there land type of those?), and scalling from it: 460mm should be around 12.5% stronger (2,527 fragments vs 2,846 fragments) 203mm should have around 1/5th strength (255/1200) 127mm should have around 1/20th strength (66/1200)

Anyone have more online data, about San-Shiki? It seems there was at least one modification for it (Type 4). Does TYPE 3 means, that it was introduced in 1943 (well, at least in late 1942, to use at Guadalcanal)?

40cm Naval Gun, is similar to Device 773. Soft Attack seems to be just 1/10th of Effect, however this effect is calculated. Since 2240 is pretty close to 2527 (number of fragments of San-Shiki in 406mm gun), one of the possibilities is to give this gun 252.7 Soft Attack, so it will look like this: 406mm 252.7 203mm 252.7*255/1200=53.69875 127mm 252.7*66/1200=13.8985 Yet, it will only give 252.7*2846/2527=284.6 Soft Attack for 46cm Gun, while Device 1654 46cm Gun, have already 321. The option is to leave this at 321.

The other way, is to get this 321, and scale lesser guns down, so: 406mm 321*2527/2846=285.02002811 203mm 285.02002811*255/1200=60.5667559733 127mm 285.02002811*66/1200=15.676101546

It seems, that Japan used 10% better explosive material in their projectiles. Does, it mean, that we should multiply guns effectiveness by that values?

And, another problem. The same page, info about San-Shiki:

quote:

Sankaidan - Japanese for "fragmentation." Also known as "incendiary shrapnel shells" (shôi ryûsandan). These were AA rounds which contained hundreds of incendiary-filled steel tubes and officially designated as "Type 3 Common Shells" (3 Shiki tsûjôdan). The incendiary filling was "Elektron" metal (45%), barium nitrate (40%) and rubber (14.3%) together with sulfur (0.5%) and stearic acid (0.2%). "Elektron" was a trade name for a metal alloy composed primarily of magnesium (90%) with the balance being aluminum (3%), copper (3%), zinc (2%) and silicon (2%). Besides their incendiary effect, the steel tubes also acted as shrapnel. The Type 3 was first deployed in 1942 for 20 cm (8 in) and larger guns and in 1943 for the 12.7 cm/40 (5 in) AA and 12.7 cm/50 (5 in) DP guns. The 46 cm (18.1 in) Type 3 projectiles for the Yamato class battleships may have been nicknamed "The Beehive" but this could be apocryphal. A time fuze was used to set the desired bursting distance, usually about 1,000 meters (1,100 yards) after leaving the muzzle. These projectiles were designed to burst in a 20 degree cone extending towards the oncoming aircraft with the projectile shell itself being destroyed by a bursting charge to increase the quantity of steel splinters. The incendiary tubes ignited about half a second later and burned for five seconds at 3,000 degrees C, producing a flame about 5 meters (16 feet) long. These shells were thought to have a larger lethal radius than did standard HE AA rounds. The concept behind these shells was that the ship would put up a barrage pattern through which an attacking aircraft would have to fly. However, the USN pilots considered them to be little more than fireworks and not an effective AA weapon.

There are two ways to implement this: 1) Change in the code. Not doable in editor 2) Making two types of guns, the latter already with included San-Shiki. There is "upgrade" field in statistics, but it seems to not work for ship guns. Also, most ship classes have upgrades in different timeframes, than San-Shiki introduction. That would require of making additional upgrades in the middle 1942/early 1943.

At least it seems, that part of guns are not used anywhere. Namely 20cm Cruiser early version. That should be easy, as there are only around 5 classes of CAs, and only their first version should have "old" gun type.

Only the LAST possibility from my earlier calculations include modification of Yamato's 460mm, so I will stick to it.

It seems, that Japan used 10% better explosive material in their projectiles. Does, it mean, that we should multiply guns effectiveness by that values?

Are they included already? You'll need to reverse the calculation to see if effectiveness correlates to bursting charge or to bursting charge times equivalent explosive power. Even then damage isn't solely a factor of burster size, particularly for AP.

quote:

quote:

Sankaidan - Japanese for "fragmentation." Also known as "incendiary shrapnel shells"

I think the significant part of that quote is: "USN pilots considered them to be little more than fireworks and not an effective AA weapon."

It seems, that Japan used 10% better explosive material in their projectiles. Does, it mean, that we should multiply guns effectiveness by that values?

Are they included already? You'll need to reverse the calculation to see if effectiveness correlates to bursting charge or to bursting charge times equivalent explosive power. Even then damage isn't solely a factor of burster size, particularly for AP.

Smaller (127mm) Japan guns are slightly stronger, than comparable USA version, but I see, that there is difference in shell weight 23kg/22.7kg. Larger Allied guns are much stronger, and British seems to be strongest. However, 50 effectiveness in 5' guns seems to be directly number of lbs of shell, so statistics seems very simple. As I understand, AP penetration is directly from penetration tables, so obviously no changes here. I am wondering, if Soft Attack was also projected from appropiate shells, as HE seems to be generally lighter, than AP versions.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Sankaidan - Japanese for "fragmentation." Also known as "incendiary shrapnel shells"

I think the significant part of that quote is: "USN pilots considered them to be little more than fireworks and not an effective AA weapon."

I do not think, gun can target several planes in one shot, and they should, to model San-Shiki. Considering that, large guns have around 20s accuracy, and smaller DP, in higher 50s, I do not expect them, to have serious impact on Allied loses. What I hope, is that even missed shots, have chance to influence enemy run, so I hope to see much lower hit-ratio against ships equipped with San-Shiki.

It seems, that Scenario 2 is first candidate for modification, as it is obvious early San-Shiki falls under "better preparations for war". Here is picture, from mentioned earlier topic. It is supposed to be:

It seems, that Japan used 10% better explosive material in their projectiles. Does, it mean, that we should multiply guns effectiveness by that values?

If you want to get into this, you should also include the fact that picric acid explosive was highly unstable (witness the destruction of the Mutsu) and tended to burst on impact rather than after penetration (spoiling the armour piercing effect).

It seems, that Japan used 10% better explosive material in their projectiles. Does, it mean, that we should multiply guns effectiveness by that values?

If you want to get into this,

Naah. Too much work. Well, actually I could probably export everything into spreadsheet, and change it there, but it seems, that Naval Guns need some more work. For example, 20cm Short Japan Gun have identical Soft Attack, as longer versions, despite having only 1/5th of shell weight. Also, it seems that accuracy should be seriously looked into, as dedicated AA guns have it lower, than DP versions. And the last, Soft Attack of very large guns. It seems, they were using much smaller HE shells, than their AP versions, so should be accordingly weaker. For example: Yamato Gun have 3219 effect, but its HE shell weights only 2998. USA 16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7 Gun, have 2700 lbs(!) AP shell, but its HE weights only 1900. It seems, that this should leave British Guns, as the best for bombardment.

quote:

you should also include the fact that picric acid explosive was highly unstable (witness the destruction of the Mutsu)

That is pretty easy to implement. It just needs to increase chance for random explosion effect on japanese ships. I am afraid, not doable in editor.

quote:

and tended to burst on impact rather than after penetration (spoiling the armour piercing effect).

That also should not be hard to implement. Just change the random damage, to have greater chance to make low damages. There is field for malfunction in editor, but I think it just negates ALL damages, so again, it will be only possible in code.

ORIGINAL: inqistor It seems, that Japan used 10% better explosive material in their projectiles. Does, it mean, that we should multiply guns effectiveness by that values?

Japanese explosives were not more powerful; they were considerably less powerful than Allied equivalents. Japan used TNT and their version of Amatol (TNT and Ammonium Nitrate) as explosive charges with picric acid as a booster. Relative brisance was 1.00 to 1.17. Allied shells used RDX (cyclonite), Composition B, Cyclotol, Torpex. Relative brisance 1.35 to 1.66 (20 to 66% more powerful).

Japanese shell steel was several tensile grades lower then Allied equivalents. Japanese fuze technology was at least one to three generations behind Allied equivalents. Japan compensated for their lack of modern, high tensile, drawn steel, ammunition production facilities by manufacturing fragmentation ammunition with ball fragments, focused and accelerated by a compressed black powder mix (copied exactly from the Russian Tula Arsenal specs).

At the wars beginning, an Allied shell was approximately 1.6 times more effective than an equivalent Japanese shell. By 1943, an Allied shell was approximately 2.2 times more effective than an equivalent Japanese shell. By 1945, an Allied shell was approximately 5.7 times more effective than an equivalent Japanese shell.

The Russians and Chinese captured huge stocks of Japanese weapons and ammunition in 1945. During the Korean conflict, the NKs and Chinese used much of these stocks. The Soviets remanufactured and refilled as much captured Japanese ammunition as they could, because the Japanese ammunition was so tactically puny as to be useless. The Chinese and NKs threw away all their captured Japanese stuff as soon as they captured anything worthwhile from the UN forces. China ended the Korean conflict with over 30% of its captured 1945 stock of Japanese ammunition still in place. It was useless.

So in the real "real world", Japanese weapons and ammunition were deemed inferior to their Western equivalent, to the point of uselessness when any alternative was available. But this is a game, and real "real world" numerics would send Japan into the dumper, so Allied values are purposely cut by 30% to 200% to balance the game.

Are you truly interested in how these things work? Or just a japfanboi looking to hustle Jap weapons? If the first, people here can likely help. If the second, you are on your own.

Since now I know the formula, behind calculating naval gun effect, lets calculate Soft Attack again. The basic assumption is, that 46cm gun should have slightly better statistics, and scaling it down will produce desired effects.

46cm gun projectile weights for Common Type 3 IS - 2,998 lbs., same as HE version, so it should have 299 Soft Attack. Shell is supposed to produce 2,846 fragments, so basic calculations will go from 284.6, It should be slightly better, than 299.8, or even 299.8*1.05. Increasing damage by 10% gives 110%*284.6=313.06. Close, but probably too close (299.8*1.05=314.79). Lets get 15%. 115%*284.6=327.29. Better, but still far too close to 314.79.

120%*284.6=341.52. Around 10% better for both cases, so it seems right.

ORIGINAL: JWE At the wars beginning, an Allied shell was approximately 1.6 times more effective than an equivalent Japanese shell. By 1943, an Allied shell was approximately 2.2 times more effective than an equivalent Japanese shell. By 1945, an Allied shell was approximately 5.7 times more effective than an equivalent Japanese shell.

So, is it implemented in-game? I do not see any changes in Naval Guns in editor. Actually all EFFECTs seems to be directly by shell weight, no matter of nation, so... is it in the code? Does Allies Naval Guns becomes increasingly better with time? Is it in manual?

I don't think that making any special allowance for things of marginal effectiveness like San-Shiki shells makes sense. There is a degree of abstraction in the game after all. Like, the game sees only the difference between "DP" or "not DP" gun, there is no provision for guns that technically had ability to fire at aircraft, but were mostly ineffective in this task, so, say, the Japanese destroyer fleet gets a huge bonus here even after shifting all guns with no anti-aicraft ability at all into the former category. Or, for another example, there is no differentiation between gun mounts save for that written in the statistics of the gun itself. Allies get some early bonuses from this, but Japanese benefit much more, when late in the war every single 25mm manually-operated mount with a simple ring scope (which are added in droves to almost everything that floats by late-war upgrades) has exactly 1/3 effectiveness of a triple powered mount, connected to a fire director, even though realistically the flak value of the former should have been, like, 1/30 of the latter.

I don't think that making any special allowance for things of marginal effectiveness like San-Shiki shells makes sense. There is a degree of abstraction in the game after all.

Depends what does it mean "marginal". I doubt anyone actually made any research in this topic. Also, it seems that all bombardment ammunition during Guadalcanal Campaign was San-Shiki. Anyway, does not sole fact of firing should decrease planes hit-ratio against ship? I am after ANYTHING, which increases frontline supply usage

quote:

Or, for another example, there is no differentiation between gun mounts save for that written in the statistics of the gun itself. Allies get some early bonuses from this, but Japanese benefit much more, when late in the war every single 25mm manually-operated mount with a simple ring scope (which are added in droves to almost everything that floats by late-war upgrades) has exactly 1/3 effectiveness of a triple powered mount, connected to a fire director, even though realistically the flak value of the former should have been, like, 1/30 of the latter.

Actually I think it is an error. I do not know, if in-game mounts actually increase chance of hit, but there are MG(x2), and Quad-MGs as single Devices, so it seems triple-AA-mounts should be also one Device.

Surprise, surprise, there is Device 602, Triple 25mm AA gun. I do not see it used anywhere, so...

This is a one time response, because you are telling people you have figured it out, when you have not figured it out. You are giving people a false impression. The eff data number is the projectile weight, but there are 9 different combat modes that calculate effectiveness from data 9 different ways, off the base data number. You dink with the base, your game goes into the dumper.

You may, of course, do your mod in any manner you please. But your conclusions are not based on anything having to do with the game's combat algorithms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor Actually I think it is an error.

No, it is not an error.

quote:

I do not know,

An accurate statement

quote:

if in-game mounts actually increase chance of hit,

They do not.

quote:

but there are MG(x2), and Quad-MGs as single Devices, so it seems triple-AA-mounts should be also one Device.

No, they should not.

quote:

Surprise, surprise, there is Device 602, Triple 25mm AA gun. I do not see it used anywhere, so...

Surprise, surprise, device 602 is a holdover from WiTP-1 and is not used in WiTP-AE

I just hate it when people say they have it all figured out, and they don't, and then the clones try to play it and everything explodes. And then they blame it on us. It's a fine line to walk. Just have to put a stake in the ground that says 'beyond here be bullpoop". After that, fanbois can dance the mongo fandango, for all I care.

Well, I have set up small scenario, and initial testing does not seem encouraging. In one instance Yamato even used 3 points of ammo, from one of 46cm gun emplacements, but it got 16 hits anyway, and Allies lost only 3 planes to flak. I have to check, what will be loses without San-Shiki.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

This is a one time response, because you are telling people you have figured it out, when you have not figured it out. You are giving people a false impression. The eff data number is the projectile weight, but there are 9 different combat modes that calculate effectiveness from data 9 different ways, off the base data number. You dink with the base, your game goes into the dumper.

You may, of course, do your mod in any manner you please. But your conclusions are not based on anything having to do with the game's combat algorithms.

My conclusions are, that effect is copied directly from projectile weight, which you just confirmed. What is your point?

quote:

quote:

but there are MG(x2), and Quad-MGs as single Devices, so it seems triple-AA-mounts should be also one Device.

No, they should not.

But they were used in WITP? Why did you resigned from them in AE?

quote:

quote:

Surprise, surprise, there is Device 602, Triple 25mm AA gun. I do not see it used anywhere, so...

Surprise, surprise, device 602 is a holdover from WiTP-1 and is not used in WiTP-AE

But they are listed in game database! Even with two versions, also double 25mm, and 13mm MGs:

5 test runs with San-Shiki, and 5 with standard guns. In first case there were ALWAYS 2 strikes, Yamato was sunk in 2nd test, after only 3 hits, and it reported lowest aircraft loses in all tests, which clearly shows, than most loses are generated by larger guns (no other ships were sunk in this turn). During 1st test for 3 days, there was no strikes, because of weather.

In second case there were 4(!) strikes in 3 first tests, then 1 strike in 4th, and 2 strikes in fifth. It seems, that amount of AA fire lower chance of additional strikes (lower morale? I have to check that). Yamato was sunk in 1st test, but only during 4th strike. Weather stopped strike only once.

Results: Aircraft loses, checked at Allied side. Written as flak/operational. After five tests, there are average loses:

Conclusions: San-Shiki does not seem to lower number of hits, despite lower number of strikes. Largest reported use of 46cm ammunition was 4 (in one turret). DB loses seems comparable, although flak are slightly higher for San-Shiki. TB loses are much higher. That could suggest, that lower attacks are either easier to hit, or can be targeted by larger number of shots. What is interesting, that actually total DB loses were higher for standard guns (5 vs 4.8), but it is probably because Yamato was quickly sunk in first attempt.

Only Yamato was equipped in new guns, so I have to run further tests, with larger number of ships, equipped with San-Shiki. As soon, as I figure out, how to send coordinated strikes, without increasing experience of pilots

First curiosity - DP guns have Rate of Fire similar to this of Naval types. It seems to be 1/10th of accuracy, however this accuracy is calculated. However, as you can see on screenshot below: All 12.7cm guns have ROF of five. It seems somehow low, according to this page, it was: Rate Of Fire 5 to 10 rounds per minute

Taking increasing, and lowering into consideration, to whole 75 degrees, well maybe it could be 5(Loading Angle +5 to +10 degrees (Hand ramming)), However, in case of max lower elevation (like 40 in Type A model), it probably should be higher.

What is actually interesting, are two AA guns, which are in NO ANY statistics better, than standard DP guns: 12.7 cm/40 (5") Type 89 have Rate Of Fire Type 89: 8 - 14 rounds per minute and could be Loading Angle Any So, I see no reason to put it under 8.

Further testing. 3BBs, and 3 CAs, vs the same CVs. 5 hexes range It seems neither fatigue, not morale have significant impact, after strikes (actually average morale rises overall). Damages seems to be distributed completely random, fleets end up with minimal damage, but sometimes half of the fleet is obliterated.

As a side note, I made an experiment with B29 strike, on 6k feet, at 3 hexes range. Planes were shot down really rarely (2 flak, and 1 operational loss in 5 tests), but most (100% in most cases) seems to be damaged during attack (damaged also very rarely resulted in operational loss)

Conclusions: DB loses are doubled, TB are around 15% higher. It does not seems to make great difference, so I did not made tests, with unmodified guns. Damages, and ammo usage: What we all already know, even for mid-sized strikes ammo usage is around 1/3rd. There is no indication of any pattern in damage. It is pure luck. So, it seems, that San-Shiki have some impact on battle, but it is not significant. Especially for Allied side.

I do not know why, DBs get far less loses, than TBs, despite being 2 times more common. It is possible that altitude have greatest impact. I took a look what can cause it, but the only possibility would be 13.2mm MG, yet it is pretty rare on ships. So, additional planned changes: increasing 25mm MG ceiling to 9k, to keep with "reason for 4Es to attack over 10k" increasing 12cm rocket ceiling to 4k, currently they have 1800 maximum ceiling, which is below minimal Allied exit altitude for DBs. Fuzes were supposed to be set at 8.5 seconds, and with 656 fps, it is pretty close to 4k. increasing 13mm MG to 13k. Currently it is in middle of DB exit ceiling (3200), and let it be reason to NOT fly only at 10k feet

I am also thinking of change to early Commando squad. It is in production from 9/42 anyway. So, maybe those Australian companies should begin with fire-squads? If it will represent only 4 (or even 3) soldiers, that would allow them to fit into SS. Of course only ONE squad, and without additional supply, so its usefulness will be minimal (after 3 days maximum disruption, and landing in Move Mode), so the only use will be either recon mission, or attack on empty base, and probably less than 30% chance on success anyway.

I have made simple experiment. Taking all calculations it seems, that there is possibility to load Japan SS, as it takes 6 point, for every infantry point weight. 3 possible Devices were SNLF, Thai, and Mongolian HMG squad, of this, I think, only SNLF can be non-perma-restricted. Here is picture, it IS possible to load SS with SNLF HMG squad. So, after modification, Commando now also fits in larger SS, but should it be size 3, or 4? Smaller size will allow additional supply, but using only ONE sub will have minimal chance of success (disruption during landing), so this kind of operation will require small flotilla anyway. It probably also should be weaker. I think that would be 1 BAR, and rest armed with SMGs, or virtually changing their weight, and keep statistics, as they are now.

Scenario 2 is ready and uploaded, but since I already messing with it, I thought that I can modify also Japanese pilot numbers, as they are unnecessary large, at the game beginning. Here are numbers to compare Scenarios 1, and 2: Scenario 1: year Army Navy pool 2202 1700 1941 195 150 1942 185 150 1943+ 615 480

Well, 1615+680 in 1945. Can Japan economy handle those numbers, even with intact industry? Probably half of historical 1943 training numbers in 1941/1942 should be enough. And number should drop in 1945, after 1944 peak.

The Japanese produced following kinds of HEAT shell. Among them, the HEAT of Type 41 Mountain Gun was used in action and destroyed several Allied tanks in Burma and other places. The use of the HEAT for other guns is not known.

Below is the photo on the HEAT of Type 94 Mountain Gun. The HEAT of Type 94 Mountain Gun was not produced though it was developed.

Wikipedia actually lists: Type 2 Hollow charge - 7.81 lb (3 inches of RHA) So, probably, imported Hollow-Charge technology was also used for developing new ammunition for guns. I do not see Type 41 in game (only Type 94), but if they are unified, it probably should be another version of gun present, introduced in late 1942, with better penetration. I even can explain, why Type 94 was not equipped with new AP shell, it had over 20% less muzzle velocity.